Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mango juice^talk 15:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tkguy/Asiaphile[edit]

This is an archived copy of disputed article content that has remained in userspace for 1 and a half years without improvement, or indeed edits of any sort. Violates ~~WP:UP#NOT~~ WP:UP#COPIES. --MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with MFD Asian fetish, which of the 15 WP:UP#NOT point(s) are being violated? --Marc Kupper|talk 04:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I used the wrong sectionlink. I've corrected it above; should be WP:UP#COPIES. MastCell ^Talk 04:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that the 15 examples listed on WP:UP#NOT are just that, examples. It is far from an exhaustive list of what is not allowed in userspace. Any challenge to "name which one of the 15 points" is entirely invalid. Gigs (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No challenge was intended. I was puzzled as the MFD, and userspace content, did not make sense to me with WP:UP#NOT. The correction to WP:UP#COPIES makes perfect sense. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep per same reasoning and comment as what I used at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asian fetish with the only difference being that the user never did any editing after creating the user page copy. As there were deletion and merge threats at the time I suspect the intent was preserving a copy of Asiaphile just in case the delete/merge went through. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep as I was reading over WP:EM again and would much rather do the voluntary CSD U1 approach. The copy is already hatted as a user page meaning the odds are low someone would confuse this with the mainspace article. Despite the edit warring and blocks the user has demonstrated that he/she is willing to work with other editors. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had a rather different impression - their last editing involved breaching a 1RR restriction rather egregiously, and they've since disappeared. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If they'd like to work on this article, then they'd probably want to work based on the current live version anyway. This is more than enough time to let a disputed content fork lay around in userspace. Gigs (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.